A dilemma for modern television programmers and viewers alike is the problem of viewer diversity and differing moral values. Television programs that seem harmless to one person are considered by another as totally unacceptable and morally wrong. Among the conflicting values are the primary issues of violence, nudity, language and subject matter.
Millions of American households are single parent or two paycheck households where children's television choices cannot be supervised during many hours of each day. The programs these children watch and the amount of time they spend watching the television are of great concern to their parents. Millions of other Americans adhere to moral values that are offended by many current television programs. In addition, many other Americans who are not offended by the current programming, now believe that television programs may be an influential molder of our nation's values and behavior patterns. The strength of this belief has led to cries for government intervention and has even fueled attempts at legislative solutions to television censorship. However, first amendment rights have blocked such efforts.
Problems arise in the nature of television technology. Programs are transmitted from a central location for viewing by millions of people in their own homes. Gable television systems use in-home converters to receive the video and audio signals transmitted on cable. These converters are used to convert the video and audio signals of the channel selected by the viewer to predetermined and fixed frequencies for application to the user's television receiver. Computer generated digital data can also be transmitted, conveying commands to enable or disable the converter or enable or disable the reception of different channels.
A variety of proposals have heretofore been made to address the selective viewing needs of the American family. Most of the proposals have either been limited in their focus or lacked practicability. Thus, for example, a system for obtaining and viewing either separately or as an overview a listing of programs scheduled for presentation has been described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,751,587 which was granted to Reiter et al. on Jun. 14, 1988. In addition to downloading and displaying a listing of programs, it proposed including generalized access control at Column 7, lines 15 et seq. where it is said, "The ROM could also take the form of a PROM or EPROM and be used to permit the owner of the television and system invention to control access to the television, or access to particular television channels. In order to control access, the RAM could instruct the viewer to input a personal code number which would be stored in the ROM and which would act as a password for all future uses of the system and/or television." However, although suggesting a form of general access control, there appears to be no teaching or the utilization of content censorship; and the thrust of the Reiter et al. reference is to aid in searching for user desirable programs rather than censoring undesirable ones.
Some solutions while being technically feasible could not be implemented because they depended on the participation of the organizations whose programs would be censored. Accordingly, in spite of a variety of solutions proposed and patented over many years, effective solutions have yet to be made in the empowering the American family with control over their television viewing.
One approach to providing censorship has been to equip converters with a feature known as "Parental Control." Some "Parental Control" systems employ a key and other a digital pass code to block one or more selected channels from viewing. An example of one such system is that of U.S. Pat. No. 4,718,107 to Hayes. According to the Hayes system, when one or more channels are blocked, all of the programs shown on such channels are made inaccessible by a viewer until the channel is unblocked or until power to the converter is lost. A problem with this approach is that some good or otherwise acceptable programs are blocked along with the unacceptable ones. Thus, a parent wishing to exclude a violent or sexy police program from the view of young children may also be blocking access to his favorite baseball program. Under channel blocking proposals, everything on a channel is either blocked or available for viewing.
The shortcomings of the channel blocking approach have been recognized by others and there have been attempts to devise ways to block individual programs without disabling an entire channel. Some of these approaches incorporate a "Material Content Signal" onto or into program material. Examples of this approach are those of U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,888,796 and 5,172,111 to Olivo, Jr. According to such proposals, a receiving device, upon recognizing the "Material Content Signal", blocks the television program unless a secret code or PIN has been entered into the receiver through a key pad. Other, e.g., those of U.S. Pat. No. 5,033,085 to Rew and U.S. Pat. No. 5,270,822 to Choi, have devised similar methods but have differed in the design of their receiving devices. Each relies on an electronic signal accompanying the broadcast program, such signal being recognized by the receiver which automatically deactivates the television or refuses access to the television channel while the electronic signal is present. While overcoming the all or nothing problem mentioned above, such approaches also have their own shortcomings. First, their solutions are limited: there is but one threshold per television set. For example, in a family with a parent, a very young child, a teenage child and grandparent, all members of the household must adhere to one of two choices: either a censored level geared for one member of the household or access to all programs. An additional problem is created by blocking the signal without informing the viewer why the program is not being received. When the television screen goes blank or the picture is scrambled, is the television malfunctioning or is it blocking a program? The viewer is not informed.
The most significant problem with this approach is that it depends on the networks and cable companies to insert the ratings data into the broadcast signal. Those who are to be censored assign the ratings and control over ratings and viewing in part, at least, is at the judgment of the viewed. Thus, it is the originator of the programs that assigns the ratings, obviously an undesirable condition that might lead to a conflict of interest. Even if ratings are prepared by an impartial third party, effective use of such ratings requires the participation of the broadcasters. If they refuse to insert the program classification signals into the programs, such solution is ineffective. Even if broadcasters cooperate, there lies the problem of establishing uniform and acceptable standards. Thus, what may be an acceptable moral standard to one person may be quite unacceptable to another; and since the foregoing proposals envision a single set of ratings, viewers are limited to a single source standard.
An improved program blocking-censorship approach is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,930,160 to Vogel. According to the Vogel proposals, program classification signals are encoded in a video or audio portion of received programs, and such approach allows the viewer an expanded array of choices for selecting the types of programming that may be displayed through use of an improved user input provision. During periods of censorship/blocking, alternative viewing material previously selected by the viewer is provided. The user input provisions, while an improvement over other proposals as described above, also suffers from its limitations. While allowing a wider array of classification categories and enhanced censorship selections by the authorized person within the household, such approach limits the viewing options of all viewers to two categories: those who have a PIN and those who don't. Those who do may view all categories of programs, while those who do not are prevented from viewing any. Additionally, the censorship standards utilized under this proposal would likely come from a central censorship authority. This approach also requires the participation of the broadcasters if it is to be effective.
Not only is the matter of television control one of program content but it additionally entails the amount of watching time. Thus, it has been observed that excessive watching time, especially for children, may displace more worthy activities, activities such as school study or physical fitness activity. Here, also, there have been proposals for control. In U.S. Pat. No. 4,566,033 there is proposed a system in which a token is employed to activate a television set for a predetermined period of time. However, such proposals do not distinguish between different users nor do they provide for user identification. In addition, because in the token-operated system operation includes inhibiting power to the television set, it has the additional disadvantage of requiring the reprogramming of any pre-programmed features normally desired for operation.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,348,696 discloses the use of a microprocessor and stored passwords to distinguish between multiple viewers. In addition, it provides for inhibited viewing during selected periods of time during each day. However, it is very complex and suffers from the disadvantage of turning power to the set off and on. It also does not provide for an override capability.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,060,079 discloses an arrangement which utilizes a transportable magnetic medium to activate the television and also provides a readout for viewers so they will know how much time a program has remaining. However, transportable mediums can be exchanged, borrowed or, more likely, lost or misplaced by children. If exchanged, borrowed or altered, children can have access to prohibited programs. On the other hand, if lost, there is no access until another or replacement magnetic medium is provided.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,168,372 to Sweetset describes a time control system which incorporates a viewing allowance that, if exceeded, interrupts the RF input signal. Viewing times can be set on a daily or weekly basis. In addition, the Sweetset system includes block out times for each of a plurality of designees (e.g., children) during any day of the week. Also included is an override feature that allows a parent to watch television regardless of how much time children have remaining, and the system is also capable of channel blocking. However, as with others of the foregoing proposals, such proposals are single dimensional in that they are directed to only one of the two aforementioned facets of effective television watching control. Thus, Sweetset does not control what is seen but only how long it is seen, and the limited channel blocking ability contains the same limitations described above.
Prior art pushbutton based proposals for entering passwords (personal identification numbers generally known as PIN codes) assume that it is easier for a child to press colored buttons than it is for them to enter a four digit number. However, such have certain disadvantages. By the time children reach school age, they are able to count to ten and read numbers. They also have enough dexterity to operate video games. By limiting PIN codes to a sequence of four colored buttons, the possibility of password theft becomes substantial. An older child can either watch a sibling enter his/her password or, through simple experimentation, can ascertain another's PIN number. In addition, because such proposals include assignment of one of four color keys for unit activation, the practical limit of such system is four people. An additional problem with such a password approach is that parents' passwords are programmed using the same four buttons that children use. Because of this limitation, an energetic or motivated child can easily decipher a parent's password and gain control of the television set. Moreover, under these proposals, only one element of information is displayed at a time. If a child wishes to know how much more time is available to him or her during the current period (day or week), he/she must pass through successive displays to locate such information.
An additional disadvantage of the Sweetset proposal is that its programming is cumbersome. Programming prompts are in symbols rather than in written words. To program the unit, one must constantly refer to the accompanying literature, and time allowances can be set either daily or weekly but not in combination. Finally, because the unit is not down line activated, it is not suitably designed to be offered as a cable company service.
As suggested above, none of the foregoing proposals include a comprehensive multi-dimensional solution to television control. Each such proposal addresses one but not both of the considerations of time allocation and program content. However, for many households, both considerations are important.